Quick Summary
David Bowling (plaintiff) sought damages against Heil Company (defendant) for a fatal incident involving a defective dump truck. The issue presented was whether comparative negligence principles apply to strict liability in tort cases.
The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that comparative negligence does not apply to strict liability in tort cases, reinstating the trial court’s judgment favoring the plaintiff without reducing damages for contributory negligence.
Facts of the Case
Late David Bowling (plaintiff), who tragically lost his life while operating a dump truck manufactured by Heil Company (defendant). After successfully dumping a load of gravel, Bowling encountered an issue with the truck’s bed, which refused to descend as it should have.
In an attempt to rectify the problem, Bowling crawled underneath the elevated truck bed to access the control lever on the pump valve assembly. Upon manipulating this lever, the truck bed abruptly descended, resulting in Bowling’s instantaneous death.
The representatives of Bowling brought forth a strict liability claim against Heil Company, asserting that the product was defective. The jury concurred that Bowling did exhibit contributory negligence but had not voluntarily assumed any known risk.
A judgment was entered for the full damages amount by the trial court. However, this decision was later overturned by an appellate court which reduced the compensation due to Bowling’s contributory negligence.
Procedural History
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded full damages.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, reducing the damages award because of Bowling’s contributory negligence.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether principles of comparative negligence or comparative fault should apply to a product liability action based on strict liability in tort.
Rule of Law
The doctrine of strict liability applies even if a seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of a product, and regardless of whether the user or consumer has entered into any contractual relationship with the seller.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court of Ohio distinguished between negligence actions and strict liability in tort, emphasizing that R.C. 2315.19 applies specifically to negligence actions and not to strict liability claims. The Court found no middle ground between contributory negligence as mere failure to discover a defect and voluntary assumption of a known risk.
Since Bowling did not assume a known risk, his contributory negligence did not provide a defense for Heil Company against the strict liability claim. The Court also highlighted public policy considerations, asserting that strict liability in tort seeks to allocate the cost of injuries among all users of a product rather than apportioning fault among those who caused the injury.
After reviewing decisions from other jurisdictions, the Court found no compelling rationale to apply comparative negligence principles to strict liability actions. Finally, the Court clarified that Ohio’s Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act does not abolish the doctrine of joint and several liability amongst tortfeasors.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate court’s decision, reinstating the trial court’s judgment for full damages.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Holmes dissented, arguing that decedent’s actions should be considered as an assumption of risk that intervened between the product defect and the injury. Holmes contended that comparative negligence principles should apply to strict liability cases and called for abolishing joint and several liability when comparative fault is present.
Key Takeaways
- Comparative negligence principles do not apply to strict liability in tort cases in Ohio.
- Contributory negligence by a plaintiff does not provide a defense to a strictly liable defendant unless it amounts to voluntary assumption of a known risk.
- The doctrine of joint and several liability remains intact under Ohio law.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes voluntary assumption of risk in product liability cases?
In product liability cases, voluntary assumption of risk occurs when a user knowingly and willingly encounters a defective product with understanding of the potential for injury. The user’s decision to proceed, despite this awareness, shifts the liability away from the manufacturer.
- For example: A cyclist who chooses to ride a bicycle with a known faulty brake system assumes the risk if an accident occurs due to brake failure.
How does strict liability in tort differ from negligence in assigning fault for damages?
Strict liability in tort does not depend on the establishment of negligence or fault. Instead, a defendant can be held liable simply if the product is found to be defective and causes harm, irrespective of due care exercised in its creation or use.
- For example: If a consumer is injured by an exploding pressure cooker despite following all instructions, the manufacturer could be strictly liable without proof of negligence.
Why is joint and several liability significant in tort cases involving multiple defendants?
Joint and several liability ensures that a plaintiff can recover full damages from any one of multiple defendants, regardless of their individual share of fault. This principle protects plaintiffs when one or more defendants are insolvent or cannot pay their proportion of damages.
- For example: In a case where two companies produce parts for a malfunctioning machine causing injury, the plaintiff can claim total compensation from either company without apportioning fault.
References
Was this case brief helpful?